Lucrezia Floriani

by George Sand, Julius Eker (Translator)

Lucrezia Floriani, a worldly 30-year-old actress and the mother of 4 children with 3 different fathers, meets and falls in love with Prince Karol, a moody, introspective aristocrat.

Genres: Fiction, Classics, Romance, 19th Century, France, French Literature, Womens

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1846

About the author

Amantine Lucile Aurore Dupin de Francueil, best known by her pen name George Sand, was a French novelist, memoirist and journalist. One of the most popular writers in Europe in her lifetime, being more renowned than either Victor Hugo or Honoré de Balzac in England in the 1830s and 1840s, Sand is recognised as one of the most notable writers of the European Romantic era. She wrote more than 50 volumes of various works to her credit, including tales, plays and political texts, alongside her 70 novels.
Like her great-grandmother, Louise Dupin, whom she admired, George Sand advocated for women's rights and passion, criticized the institution of marriage, and fought against the prejudices of a conservative society. She was considered scandalous because of her turbulent love life, her adoption of masculine clothing, and her masculine pseudonym.

Reviews

[°°°·.°·..·°¯°·._.· ʜᴇʟᴇɴ Ροζουλί Εωσφόρος ·._.·°¯°·.·° .·°°° ★·.·´¯`·.·★ Ⓥⓔⓡⓝⓤⓢ Ⓟⓞⓡⓣⓘⓣⓞⓡ Ⓐⓡⓒⓐⓝⓤⓢ Ταμετούρο Αμ · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Έχω έναν σκοπό, ένα καθήκον, ας την πω τη λέξη, ένα πάθος. Το να γράφω είναι ένα πάθος βίαιο και σχεδόν ακαταμάχητο» (Από επιστολή της, 1831).

«Να μη βάζει κανείς τίποτα από την καρδιά του σ' αυτό που γράφει; Καθόλου δεν καταλαβαίνω, μα καθόλου. Εμένα μου φαίνεται ότι αυτό και μόνο πρέπει να βάζουμε»
(Απο επιστολή της στον Φλωμπέρ, 1866).


Αυτό το βιβλίο γράφτηκε απο μια γυναίκα «σκάνδαλο», μια προσωπικότητα αντισυμβατική,
ελεύθερη, δυναμική, προκλητική, τολμηρή και ανυπότακτη.

•Γεωργία Σάνδη•

Γεννιέται 1η Ιουλίου του 1804 στο Παρίσι. Απο πατέρα αριστοκράτη και μητέρα πληβεία. Το όνομά της ήταν Αμαντίν Ορόρ Λουσίλ Ντιπέν, αλλά όλοι τη φώναζαν Ορόρ.
George Sang-Γεωργία Σάνδη είναι το ψευδώνυμο με το οποίο έγινε διάσημη.

Μια γυναίκα ορόσημο, μια μεγάλη μορφή με έμφυτο κύρος και ταλέντο, μαγεμένη από την φύση και τα θαύματα της, άθεη, παθιασμένη, μονίμως ερωτευμένη, αρκούντως δυστυχισμένη και ρομαντική.
Συγγραφέας αγάπης πληθωρικής, δοτικής,συμπονετικής, μια ύπαρξη που κάρπιζε απο πάθος για γράψιμο, μανιωδώς εναντιωμέμη σε κάθε μορφή κτητικότητας να παραμένει για πάντα μια ηρωίδα ασαφής και αμφισβητήσιμη.

Καλλιτεχνική φύση μαχόμενη την κοινωνική αδικία, αρωματίζει το Παρίσι με την πένα της και κάνει τους φίλους της να την αγαπούν με σοκ και δέος.
Το σπίτι της στο Νοάν γίνεται κέντρο διανόησης και καλλιτεχνικής θύελλας.
Εκεί συναντιούνται οι Μπαλζάκ, Φραντς Λιστ, Προσπέρ Μεριμέ, Χάινε.
Κάθε θεατρική σκηνή του Παρισιού αποθεώνει τα έργα της και το κοινό που την λατρεύει αντιλαμβάνεται τον απόηχο απο τα γεγονότα της εποχής μέσα απο την μαγεία της τέχνης.

Αποκτά παιδιά απο διαφορετικές αγάπες σωματικής ένωσης, θεωρεί την μόρφωση θεμέλιο λίθο της ανθρώπινης εξέλιξης
και μαζί με τα μυθιστορήματα ζωής γράφει και Ιστορία για την ανθρώπινη ράτσα.

Ένιωσα την ανάγκη να πω αρκετά γι’αυτήν την αξιολάτρευτη γυναίκα, ίσως επειδή απο τις πρώτες σελίδες τούτου του βιβλίου με πλυμμήρισε με μια ζεστασιά αμεσότητας,
με μια μεγάλη αγκαλιά απο λογοτεχνικά και ρεαλιστικά χάδια απαλά σαν λουλουδένιο χνούδι και σκληρά σαν την αλήθεια.
Με γοήτευσε, με κατάκτησε, με αφομοίωσε με την λατρεία της ψυχής της και με ταύτισε ακούσια μέσα στην παραδειγματική φθορά απο την κατάρα και την αγιοσύνη του έρωτα.
Τον αργό θάνατο του αναγνωστικού στοχασμού όπου γίνονται ταυτοποιήσεις και επικυρώσεις ψυχικών γνωματεύσεων πάνω σε αγιάτρευτες πληγές. Πάνω σε ξεσπάσματα της μοίρας, κάθε προσωπικής επιλογής και όλων των ασυγκράτητων παθών, απο αυτά, ξέρετε,τα θεσπέσια, που καταλήγουν πάντα σε αναμνήσεις ξεφτιλισμένων και αμετανόητων λαθών ευδαιμονίας.

Το μυθιστόρημα «ΛΟΥΚΡΗΤΙΑ ΦΛΟΡΙΑΝΙ»
είναι στην ουσία η ιστορία αγάπης και πάθους που έζησε με τον ιδιοφυή και φιλάσθενο μουσουργό Σοπέν.

Η Λουκρητία Φλοριάνι είναι η ηρωίδα του μυθιστορήματος που βασίζεται στην ίδια την Σάνδη
και ο εύθραυστος, τρυφερός, αγαπησιάρης,
ζηλιάρης και μονομανιακός πρίγκιπας Κάρλος,
ο εραστής της, βασίζεται στα χαρακτηριστικά του Σοπέν.
Μέσα απο αυτό το έργο προσπάθησε
με παράδοξο τρόπο να δώσει τέλος
στην δεκαετή σχέση της με τον μουσουργό που κλονισμένος απο έρωτα και κάποια βαριά ασθένεια, φαίνεται να μην πήρε ποτέ αυτό το σπαρακτικό μήνυμα αποχωρισμού.

Στην ιστορία της Λουκρητίας Φλοριάνι, η ενάρετη, τρυφερή, αφοσιωμένη, παρορμητική και μονίμως ερωτευμένη ηρωίδα χωρίζει με τελετουργικό τρόπο απο τον παρανοϊκά ζηλόφθονο και παρασιτικό εραστή της.
Ένα έργο στοχαστικό απο μια δημιουργό απαράμιλλης έμπνευσης.



«Ο θάνατός της μου φαίνεται σαν να μικραίνει την ανθρωπότητα. Υπήρξε ο ποιητής που έδωσε σάρκα στις ελπίδες μας, στους καημούς μας, στα σφάλματά μας, στους βόγκους μας», γράφει ο Ερνέστ Ρενάν, ενώ ο Ντοστογιέφσκι την αποκαλεί «μητέρα του ρώσικου μυθιστορήματος» και ο Ουγκώ «αθάνατη».

⭐️💥💥⭐️⭐️💜💜💜⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️💜💜💜

Καλή ανάγνωση.
Πολλούς ασπασμούς.

[Eric Byrd · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a novel, this isn’t my kind of thing – a melodrama of speeches, sighs, swoons, and threats of suicide, relying on eavesdropping and coincidence to maneuver characters into confrontation – one of those stagey, declamatory novels that stakes everything on its monologues – but I did like the cast and situation Sand put together (or rather recalled from her own life), her inspiration to join two different kinds of Romantic egoist in a mutually destructive liaison. Prince Karol is a familiar enfant du siècle: a haughty, neurasthenic coward, a prig concealing a vampire, an idealist who will murder what doesn’t measure up. Lucrezia is something more complex: a masochist whose pride is her resemblance to Christ (I’m not joking, she twice likens or accepts comparison of herself to Jesus, and the narrator does so constantly). Ecstatically charitable, sublimely well-intentioned, but in some way twisted, she’s a martyr-mother who wastes her life (and blights the lives of her children, I imagine) trying to make fathers out of men incapable of love. Karol is the last in the series, and the worst. She’s willing to give all she has – but Karol wants even more:

…finally deprived of subjects for jealousy, [he] now turned his attack to Lucrezia’s ideas, studies and opinions. He persecuted her politely and gracefully in all things; he did not share her taste or opinion on any subject. Inaction devoured him. Having dedicated all his will power and every moment of his existence to the possession of one woman, he was morally the most ruthless despot, just as physically he was the most vigilant jailer. Poor Lucrezia saw her last consolation poisoned when the spirit of contradiction and the bitterness of childish, irritating controversy pursued her into the purest and most innocent sanctuary of her life.

She was wrong to consent that Celio should be an actor, it was an infamous occupation. She was wrong to teach Beatrice singing and Stella painting; women should not be too artistic. She was wrong to let old Menapace amass money…In short, she was wrong not to oppose the vocation and instincts of all her family – not to mention that she was wrong to love animals, be fond of scabious, prefer blue to white, etc, etc; whatever she did was always wrong

Reading that, I see why Henry James, who was obsessed with emotional vampirism his entire career, venerated Sand from his first reading of her as a teenager (he calls Lucrezia Floriani "splendid" on the back of my edition). I couldn’t help but think of Osmond and Isabel in The Portrait of Lady as post-Bovary cousins of Karol and Lucrezia – one of the differences between the couples being that James portrays the former’s misalliance “realistically,” that is, as a disaster unfolding over years, a nightmarish mistake discovered in stages. Where to go next with Sand? Not that it’s urgent. Indiana and Lélia are titles I’ve heard. I have James’s three essays on her in his Notes on Novelists, so I’ll let him guide me. And I should look into Flaubert’s letters, where she’s addressed as “Mon chère Maître,” and see what he praises.

[Marcela · Rating 3 out of 5]

Trochę flaki z olejem, trochę mam po prostu problem z początkowymi feministycznymi dziełami XDD

[Mat · Rating 4 out of 5]

In Lucrezia Floriani we may see:
1) a psychological account of a romantic fatal passion (passion = suffering) described with classical means. The main moral of this book consists of distinction between love which looks for personal happiness (characteristic for young age) and love which looks for the happiness of others (mature love).

2)a kind of metaphor: representation of two different systems of values (one open, inclusive, based on external reality, female and associated with South, and other: closed, exclusive, existing in mind, male and associated with North). Because the latter tries to dominate the former, the story ends badly..

3)motif of love motivated by mother – son relation (a bit a la Freud);

4) the myth of Odysseus: Odysseus (travelling Karol) meets a Kirke (Lucrezia) which in second part turns out to be his Penelope but unfortunately he doesn't understand it... There are of course more evident literary tips like quotation from Dante or the story of Lucrezia - a Roman matron (which by the way was played in 1843 in Ponsard version) and this is why the heroine has to die at the end even if the narrator doesn't really see the need for an ending.

5) a moral rehabilitation of an actress (of women with a past in general) in eyes of the very conservative society (in the novel this rehabilitation fails – Karol the aristocrate has no friendship nor esteem for Lucrezia, he is only capable of admiration and jelous possessive love)

I would like to notice that the portait of Karol is not negative. The narrator describes him with many superlatives and explains his character by the education he received and his need for suffering. Karol is designed with terms of compassion as “poor child” or “unhappy child”. Only two last chapters may leave other impression in the mind of un inattentive reader. I know very well sources concerning Chopin – Sand personnalities and affair. Even if the novel reflects to a certain point their relationship, I don't think it is “a revenge took upon Chopin”, rather a kind of autotherapy for Sand herself. (Sorry for my English, I read the book in French).

[Oliwia · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 Zakończenie trochę ratuje. Egzaltacja wylewa się z każdej strony. Jeśli Chopin faktycznie jest pierwowzorem Karola, to współczuję ludziom, którzy go znali XD

[Hannah Hoyt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Prince Karol is not a complete sketch of anyone, but rather one half of human nature, the practical, sensitive soul that is masked by the other half, depicted in Salvator Albani. Many good authors do things by twos nowadays, it’s a more effective contrast. Salvator is extraverted, Karol introverted. Salvator is romantic, and Karol is practical and prudish. These opposites are more interesting to the reader. What the story is really about is the conflict between the two natures of the man: one is a sensitive child and the other is brash, friendly and full of sexual drive. You may even recognize both characters within yourself. Karol is appalled at the part of him that is sensually attracted to women. Salvator loves and looks after the disapproving innocent child he used to be and who still lives inside him. The danger lies when you shut yourself off from the emotions nature gives you—that Salvator represents—and allow yourself to be ruled only by your inner fears. The inner being, left to his own devices, became cruel and mad with jealousy, because one should not live only in one’s head, disconnected with the grounding forces of nature: the sky, the grass, animals and people. I happen to think it’s a brilliant literary allegory, but certain people who understand painting but who wouldn’t know good writing if it hit them in the face...may have interpreted the book wrongly in 1847.

NO REALLY, WHO IS PRINCE KAROL?
Fictional. It is important to remember that most of Sand's lovers throughout her life were possessive and jealous, most notably Mallefille, and all were younger than her. The virtues and flaws of Karol are those she continually sought in all her relationships, if anything Karol is an ideal type and Sands lovers fit his description because they are also her type.

There is also the concept of author's self-insertation, and how it typically works. If an author writes herself to be Lucrezia Floriani, it is because she views Lucrezia's life to be in some way better than her own, or at the very least more interesting, and that being the case real-life lovers or friends don't usually end up in the same book. If Sand wrote herself into a Gothic novel it was to romance a Byronic foreign prince in the throws of adolescence, not to romance her real life lover who was pushing 40.

[Helynne · Rating 3 out of 5]

George Sand was often accused of writing this 1846 novel as an unflattering portrait of composer Frederick Chopin with whom she had a 10-year relationship that had just ended badly. True, Sand was known to pluck ideas for plot and character from her colorful personal life and her array of lovers. She had previously done this most notably in Elle et Lui, which included the details of her passionate, but ultimately noxious relationship with poet Alfed de Musset. (For deMusset's point of view of the relationship, see his novel Confession d'un Enfant du Siecle,. Better yet, see the film version L'Enfant du Siecle starring Juliette Binoche as Sand and Benois Magimel as de Musset, which describes how de Musset indulged himself in alcohol and opiates during the couple's stay in Venice, and ended up going completely crazy). In Lucrezia Floriani, the character Prince Karol is sickly and delicate, spoiled by his mother, intelligent, but egotistical and elitist. When he meets the tempestuous Lucrezia Florianai, a popular traveling actress and musician, he is at first repulsed by her bohemian nature (at age 30, is she six years his senior and has children by three different former lovers). In typical Sandian tradition, Lucrezia describes herself and her philosophy of love: "Would you say that I am wanton? My heart, not my senses, have ruled me, and I cannot even begin to understand pleasure without rapturous affection . . . Each time I have loved, it was with so much of my heart that I thought it was for the first and last time in my life." The affair between Karol and Lucrezia is predictably a tempestuous one filled with high hopes, misunderstandings and disillusionment. There are undoubtedly similarities in this story with the Sand-Chopin affair, but the character Karol must be much, much more of a jealous, resentful scoundrel that the immensely talented and sensitive Chopin ever could have been. Furthermore, the novel functions well on its own merits and with its own plot until it reaches a more different end for Lucrezia than Sand ever could have feared for herself.

[Ashley Vernon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting book, rumored to be (contrary to Sand's statements) a reflection of her relationship with Chopin. Goes deeply into the psychology of jealousy, possessiveness, and emotional abuse. Great insight into characters, whether they are truly based on Sand/Chopin or not (and it seems to me they are, but whatever).

[Wilcza Dama · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

Napisana pięknie - z prostotą i jednocześnie bardzo poetyckim drygiem.
Raczej jednostajna, powolna, ale nie nudna - jedynie ukazująca okruchy uczuciowego życia takimi, jakimi rzeczywiście mogłyby one być.

Ocena niższa raczej za wstręt do pewnych zachowań danej postaci niż za całokształt, ale, ugh, odstręczający był owy jegomość na tyle, że mogłabym rzucić książką o ścianę i nie byłoby mi z tego powodu przykro.
(Ale taki miał być, po prostu, bo nikt nie jest idealny. ✨)

Jeśli komuś wpadłaby w ręce ta różowiutka historyjka - nie olewajcie jej. Okładka to tylko zmyłka, być może komuś zapowiadająca pustostan literacki, ale nic z tych rzeczy!
(Ja to bym jej jakiś kolor "klasyczny" szybciej dała niż taki mało poważny i typowo "babski", ale kim jestem, żeby tak dyrygować... oprócz tego, że osobą, która tę książkę przeczytała. 🗿)

[Franziska · Rating 3 out of 5]

I only recommend this book to those who love Chopin as much as I once did, and urm... George Sand did. Otherwise, you'll find this book probably rather boring.

[Karissa · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is the ultimate in illustrating the revenge that george sand took upon Chopin. It is thinly veiled revenge. Delicious.

[Ruth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is supposed to be a thinly disguised account of Sand's affair with Chopin. I didn't love it or hate it.

[Georgiatwombly · Rating 4 out of 5]

From my Georges Sand phase. I blame Judy Davis.

[Candy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very interesting book and I'm not sure how to feel about it. I picked it up because I was interested in the possible inspiration of George Sand and Chopin's real-life romance. Actually, before going into this I read that Sand denied that Karol represented Chopin and also said that there are great differences between them because Chopin was an artist with ambitions, while Karol had no great talents and only existed for his love. While that may be true, the last chapter pretty much convinced me that it took some inspiration from real life (the relationship lasting ten years, Karol's strained relationship with her eldest son, etc.).

A lot of the novel is very much fiction, but the worst traits of the characters seem to map clearly onto Sand's relationship. However, there seemed to be some bias in attributing the faults, and it wasn't enjoyable to read a tragedy in which one character contains so much more blame for the ending than the others. Lucrezia does have her faults, but they are briefly touched on compared to the lengthy descriptions of Karol's jealousy. Also, because the author chose to focus on the faults, the love they had was not thoroughly explored. It took away from the story's potential to be much more tragic if their love and bliss could have touched the reader's heart and made the ending all the more harrowing.

One of the most interesting aspects of this novel to me was Sand's dedication to making the novel as predictable as possible. In the preface, she even states her intentions to reveal everything to the reader, unlike the sensation novels gaining popularity at the time. The omniscient narrator even pops into the story multiple times to directly address the reader and discuss where the plot is heading. However, I think Sand went too far on the predictability. The narrator introduces the characters' traits in the beginning as if their actions cannot be subjective and up to interpretation. Because the plot and characters stick so closely to what was described of them, it makes the story feel stilted and the characters not entirely human. I am not sure of Sand's intentions with this predictability, and maybe she achieved those intentions, but that doesn't make for the most enjoyable read for someone just looking for a great story.

Something that I did enjoy was the writing. The dialogue was often written like a series of long monologues, which I love in getting to understand a character. Not everybody enjoys this, but I found the scenes very insightful, especially because George Sand seems to understand human nature and different perspectives so well.

[Helen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this to try to gain some additional insight into Chopin’s and Sand’s relationship, but discerning what was real and what Sand made up is inevitably difficult if not impossible. The two main characters based on Sand and Chopin were both annoying. Karol/Chopin has an infantile conception of women and relationships, while Lucrezia, obviously Sand’s version of herself as a selfless saint who sacrifices herself for love and her children, is also annoying for that reason. To my 21st century critical self this is not a very good novel, but certainly it has historic significance not only as a roman a clef but also because the ideas Sand expresses in it must have been shocking and revolutionary for its original mid-19th century readers. It is important to keep in mind that Karol is *not* Chopin, and Lucrezia is *not* Sand, though we can surmise that both real people displayed elements of their fictional counterparts’ characters.

[Cassandra Gillig · Rating 3 out of 5]

Yes I had to read it because I wanted the hot goss & I'm making my way through Sand's novels. It is neither her best nor her worst though I found the meta-commentary kind of charming & the relationship to be sickeningly real--I promise you will find an indictment of your terrible qualities somewhere in this book. How dare she! This is an ugly romance even though those involved have their charms. & if indeed we are to read it as a book about Sand, Chopin, & Liszt perhaps the cruelest thing done is to strip Chopin of all his talent & creativity & portray him instead as a mostly idle prince. I am forever reeling in how cold this is. This book goes where it tells you it goes and where you, of course, know it's going so if you're wanting to jump ship when it begins to drag w/ misery in the last fifty pages, please do & go enjoy another of Sand's works.

[Lucienne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Piękny w tej książce był zdecydowanie język i to chyba jej największy plus. Prosta w odbiorze, czytałaby się szybciej, gdyby nie to, że momentami nudziła. Dałabym jej 3,5 gwiazdki, chociaż pasuje tu bardziej ocena w skali 0-10 i byłoby to 4

[olucha · Rating 3 out of 5]

postać księcia skutecznie odebrała wszelką przyjemność czytania

[the.ravenry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wowie this book...

I physically wanted to fight George Sand during the duration of this book. This book is a hyperbolized, fictitious, and thinly veiled account of her breakup with pianist and composer Frederic Chopin.

I couldn't take it. I literally couldn't.

The neediness of Prince Karol was exhausting and even more exhausting was Sand ranting at the reader as herself and not pertaining to the plot at all. The real victim however is Count Salvator. That poor guy had to go through so much....

Anyway a good book to read if you want to hear Sands thoughts on Chopin in a rather twisted manner. I'd recommend it tbh.